A literature review of the potential of telephone follow‐up in colorectal cancer
Abstract
Aims. The aim of this review is to examine the potential of telephone follow‐up for patients with colorectal cancer. Background. More people are surviving cancer and entering into follow‐up care. It is recognised that improvements in cancer follow‐up care are needed in the UK. Telephone use has proved a very successful medium for conducting health care in other specialties and may offer an acceptable alternative to face‐to‐face follow‐up appointments. Nurse specialists could assume responsibility for patients’ follow‐up by offering telephone consultations. Design. A literature review was conducted via a systematic electronic and hand search of relevant literature. Method. Thematic content analysis was used to achieve the objectives of the review. Results. The findings demonstrate that telephone follow‐up conducted by an experienced nurse specialist is cost‐effective and accepted by the majority of patients. Aspects of care such as symptom management and reassurance are possible over the phone. Conclusion. Telephone follow‐up meets patients’ satisfaction, support and information needs and has potential to deliver high standards of aftercare when conducted by a nurse specialist. It is at least equivalent to traditional follow‐up in meeting the needs of patients with cancer. Because of the disparity of the studies examined, further research in the area of nurse‐led telephone follow‐up vs. nurse‐led traditional follow‐up would be constructive in the development of this new initiative. Relevance to clinical practice. Nurses are now increasingly involved in patient follow‐up care and telephone dialogue after hospital discharge. However, the ideal structure, method and timing of telephone follow‐up as well as the skills required to carry out such care over the phone are often not considered and have not been articulated. The option of telephone follow‐up could, for some patients, dramatically improve their care experience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A review of patients having telephone follow-up after cancer compared to face-to-face follow-up showed no differences in mortality.
“A review of patients having telephone follow-up after cancer, compared to those having a face-to-face follow-up assessment, also showed no differences in mortality [83].”
From The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview (2013) · cites this paper as [83]
In two trials described in that review, recognition of symptoms over the phone versus a face-to-face appointment was said to be equal: one in breast cancer and one for urological symptoms.
“This review included 11 articles and described two trials where recognition of symptoms over the phone versus a face-to-face appointment was said to be equal: one trial was in breast cancer and the other was for urological symptoms.”
From The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview (2013) · cites this paper as [83]
Patients who used telephone follow-up for colorectal cancer were largely satisfied and reported reduced travel time and costs and increased convenience.
“Patients who used telephone follow-up for colorectal cancer were largely satisfied. They also reported reduced travel time and costs and increased convenience [83].”
From The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview (2013) · cites this paper as [83]
Cites
Follow-up for people with cancer: nurse-led services and telephone interventions
Cox, K., & Wilson, E. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02672.x · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview
McLean, S., Sheikh, A., Cresswell, K., Nurmatov, U., Mukherjee, M., Hemmi, A., & Pagliari, C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071238 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Sack, C., Phan, V. A., Grafton, R., Holtmann, G., van Langenberg, D. R., Brett, K., Clark, M., & Andrews, J. M. (2012) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2011.08.019 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Johansson, A., Brink, E., Cliffordson, C., & Axelsson, M. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14300 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Thompson-Coon, J., Abdul-Rahman, A.-K., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Vaidya, B., Gericke, C. A., & Stein, K. (2013) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-128 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cusack, M., & Taylor, C.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Cusack, Martina
- ORCID
- Taylor, Claire
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-15
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 17-18
- Pages
- 2394-2405
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W1542587257
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Keywords
- telephone follow-up, colorectal cancer, cancer survivorship, nurse-led follow-up, specialist nurses, telephone consultation, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction, symptom management, reassurance, follow-up care, hospital discharge
- MeSH terms
- Continuity of Patient Care, Telecommunications, Colorectal Neoplasms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review